• aberrate_junior_beatnik (he/him)@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If the island were 100 times larger, the houses would take 1% of the land area, leaving 99%. The apartment complex would take up .04%, leaving 99.96%, which isn’t much of an improvement. The proportions of our planet are much closer to my scenario than this made up island. That’s a reason why we might not “prefer apartments in our own town.”

    There are good reasons you might want density, this just isn’t one of them.

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but most people don’t live in that other 90% . Most people live in urban and suburban areas where most if not all of the land is privately owned. Because of this the problem shown of fitting 100 households into 25 acres is way more common than your scenario of fitting 100 households on 2500 acres

      • ChilledPeppers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And having trees and nature near urban venters is very much desirable, to help with air pollution (tho really not a lot), heat concentration and humidity.